The federal government owns 47.70% of California’s total land, amounting to 47,797,533 acres out of the state’s 100,206,720 total acres. This places California third in the nation for federal land ownership.
California’s history is marked by significant territorial shifts. It became part of Mexico in 1821 after Mexico’s successful war for independence from Spain. However, following the Mexican-American War (1846–1848), the region was ceded to the United States under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, signed on February 2, 1848. This treaty ended the war and resulted in Mexico relinquishing 55% of its territory, including present-day California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Colorado, and parts of Wyoming. The western portion of Alta California was later organized and admitted as the 31st state on September 9, 1850, as part of the Compromise of 1850.
Interestingly, California briefly existed as an independent nation for 25 days following the Bear Flag Revolt of 1846, when American settlers rebelled against Mexican rule. This short-lived period of independence ended when U.S. forces took control of the region.
Today, California is a key state in the United States, both economically and culturally. However, the state government owns less than 3% of California’s total land area, with the majority of land managed by federal agencies, according to data from Cal Fire, the state’s fire protection and forest management agency.
The Claim That China Owns California
Recently, claims have circulated online suggesting that China owns California. While these claims may seem far-fetched—given that California is an undisputed part of the United States—they have sparked debate. To understand the origins of these claims, it’s important to examine the historical and legal context of how California became part of the U.S.
Historical Background
California’s Acquisition California became part of the United States as a result of the Mexican-American War. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, signed in 1848, formalized the transfer of a vast portion of Mexican territory to the U.S., including present-day California. This acquisition marked a significant expansion of U.S. territory and played a pivotal role in the development of the American West.
Origins of the China Ownership Claims
The claims that China owns California appear to stem from a mix of historical ties and legal arguments. For example:
- Foreign Investment: China has invested significantly in California’s real estate, technology, and infrastructure sectors. However, foreign investment does not equate to ownership of the state.
- Economic Ties: China is California’s largest trading partner, leading to speculation about economic influence over the state.
Analysis of China’s Claim
From a legal perspective, the claims lack substance. The United States has clear sovereignty over California, and there is no internationally recognized dispute regarding its ownership. International law principles, such as sovereignty and uti possidetis (which upholds existing boundaries), firmly support U.S. control over this territory.
China’s Official Position
China has never officially claimed ownership of California. The Chinese government has consistently recognized California as part of the United States. The claims circulating online are based on misinformation and conspiracy theories rather than factual evidence.
Broader Implications
If China were to pursue such a claim, it would have profound implications for U.S.-China relations. California is the largest U.S. economy and a global hub for technology and innovation. Any attempt by China to assert ownership would be seen as a direct challenge to U.S. sovereignty, potentially leading to heightened tensions and geopolitical realignments.
However, the likelihood of China pursuing such a claim is extremely low. The legal and political barriers are insurmountable, and the potential consequences—economic, diplomatic, and military—would far outweigh any perceived benefits.
While the history of California’s acquisition by the United States is complex, its status as a U.S. state is firmly established under international law. The claims that China owns this territory are unfounded and lack legal or historical basis. California remains an undisputed part of the United States, contributing significantly to the nation’s diversity, economy, and global influence.
China does not own any major ports in California, but Chinese companies have had significant stakes in terminal operations at key ports such as Los Angeles and Long Beach. In 2012, the Chinese state-owned shipping giant COSCO acquired a major stake in the Long Beach Container Terminal (LBCT), one of the busiest terminals in the U.S. However, due to national security concerns, the U.S. government forced COSCO to sell its stake in 2019. The terminal was then purchased by Macquarie Infrastructure Partners, a U.S. investment group. While this sale reduced direct Chinese ownership, China-based shipping companies like COSCO and Hutchison Ports still operate terminals or have partnerships in logistics operations along the West Coast.
Chinese influence over California’s ports primarily comes from trade dependence rather than outright ownership. California’s ports handle around 40% of all U.S. containerized imports, and a significant portion of this cargo originates from China. If China were to reroute shipments, reduce trade, or raise freight costs, it could create economic disruptions in California, affecting supply chains, jobs, and local economies. Additionally, Chinese companies control many of the shipping routes and logistics firms that move goods through these ports, giving them indirect leverage over delivery times and costs.
Another area of concern is security and data collection. Some experts worry that Chinese companies involved in port operations could gather valuable intelligence on U.S. shipping flows, military logistics, and economic activity. This has led to increased scrutiny from the U.S. government, which has been actively blocking Chinese acquisitions of critical infrastructure. In response to these concerns, California and federal authorities have been working to reduce dependence on Chinese trade, diversify import sources, and strengthen security regulations at major ports. While China’s direct control over California’s ports is limited, its dominance in global trade and shipping logistics ensures it still holds considerable influence over the state’s economy.
As of March 2025, the richest person residing in California is Larry Ellison, co-founder and chairman of Oracle Corporation, with an estimated net worth of approximately $203.9 billion. nypost.com
Ellison’s wealth has surged significantly in recent years, propelled by Oracle’s advancements in cloud computing and artificial intelligence. His substantial holdings include nearly 40% of Oracle and 15 million shares in Tesla.
Other notable billionaires in California include:
- Patrick Soon-Shiong: A medical researcher and entrepreneur, known for inventing the cancer drug Abraxane. He owns NantWorks, a network of healthcare and biotech companies, and has a net worth of $11.3 billion. en.wikipedia.org
- Donald Bren: Chairman of the Irvine Company, a real estate development firm, with an estimated net worth of $17 billion. en.wikipedia.org
- David Geffen: A prominent figure in the entertainment industry, with a net worth of $9.1 billion as of October 2023. en.wikipedia.org
It’s important to note that these figures are estimates and can fluctuate due to changes in stock prices, investments, and other financial activities.
Several powerful families have historically influenced California’s economy, politics, and development. While no single family has outright controlled the state, a few dynasties have wielded significant power across different sectors. Here are some of the most notable:
1. The Hearst Family (Media & Politics)
- William Randolph Hearst built a media empire in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, controlling newspapers like the San Francisco Examiner and later founding Hearst Communications.
- The Hearsts played a major role in shaping public opinion and California’s political landscape.
- Hearst Castle in San Simeon remains a symbol of the family’s influence.
2. The Irvine Family (Real Estate & Development)
- James Irvine amassed huge landholdings in the 19th century, and his family turned them into the Irvine Company, one of the most powerful real estate developers in California.
- The Irvine Company controls much of Orange County, including master-planned communities like Irvine.
3. The Chandler Family (Media & Influence)
- Owners of the Los Angeles Times for nearly a century, the Chandlers played a key role in shaping California’s political and economic direction.
- Harry Chandler and his successors used their influence to drive major infrastructure projects like the Los Angeles Aqueduct.
4. The Getty Family (Oil & Philanthropy)
- J. Paul Getty founded Getty Oil, which made him one of the richest men in history.
- The family’s influence extended into art and culture, with the Getty Museum and Getty Foundation becoming major institutions in California.
5. The Crocker, Huntington, Stanford & Hopkins Families (Railroads & Industry)
- These families, known as the Big Four, controlled the Central Pacific Railroad, which was crucial in building the transcontinental railroad.
- Their wealth and power shaped California’s economy in the late 19th century, particularly in San Francisco and Sacramento.
6. The Bechtel Family (Construction & Engineering)
- Bechtel Corporation, founded by Warren A. Bechtel, is one of the world’s largest construction firms, involved in massive projects like the Hoover Dam and California’s infrastructure.
- The Bechtels have remained influential in California’s development for nearly a century.
7. The Bass & Fisher Families (Technology & Investments)
- The Fisher family, founders of Gap Inc., became retail powerhouses with deep ties to California’s business scene.
- The Bass family, originally from Texas, gained influence through investments in California, particularly in tech and real estate.
While these families have left lasting marks on California, today’s power structures are more diversified, with corporate giants like Google, Apple, and Tesla shaping the state’s modern landscape.
As of 2022, the corporation generating the highest revenue in California is Apple Inc., with a U.S. ranking of 4.
Other major corporations in California by revenue include:
- Alphabet Inc. (Google’s parent company), ranked 8th in the U.S.
- Chevron Corporation, ranked 10th in the U.S.
- Meta Platforms Inc. (formerly Facebook), ranked 31st in the U.S.
- Wells Fargo & Company, ranked 47th in the U.S.
These rankings highlight California’s significant role in technology, energy, and financial sectors.
These corporations play a major role in shaping California’s economy, politics, and culture. Here’s how:
1. Apple Inc. (Technology & Economy)
- Based in Cupertino, Apple is California’s most profitable company.
- Drives Silicon Valley’s tech boom, influencing real estate, wages, and employment.
- Lobbies for tech-friendly policies, like data privacy laws and tax incentives.
- Expands global influence, bringing talent and investment into California.
2. Alphabet Inc. (Google’s Parent Company) – Information & AI
- Based in Mountain View, Alphabet dominates the digital economy.
- Controls Google Search, YouTube, and AI advancements that shape society.
- Invests in California’s infrastructure, like fiber-optic internet.
- Political influence: Spends millions lobbying on tech regulations and privacy laws.
3. Chevron Corporation (Energy & Environmental Policy)
- Based in San Ramon, Chevron is one of the biggest oil producers in the U.S.
- Huge influence on California’s energy policies, often pushing back against environmental regulations like emissions caps.
- Creates jobs but also faces lawsuits over pollution and climate impact.
4. Meta (Facebook) – Social Media & Politics
- Based in Menlo Park, Meta influences free speech, privacy, and misinformation debates.
- Invests in virtual reality (VR) and AI, reshaping industries and workspaces.
- Plays a political role, donating to both parties and shaping tech regulations.
5. Wells Fargo & Company (Finance & Real Estate)
- Based in San Francisco, Wells Fargo is one of the largest mortgage lenders.
- Shapes California’s housing market through loans, influencing real estate prices.
- Has faced scandals, leading to stricter banking regulations in the state.
How These Companies Shape California Overall
- Job Creation – Employ hundreds of thousands of Californians.
- Housing & Economy – Drive real estate prices up, especially in tech-heavy regions.
- Legislation & Lobbying – Influence state policies on taxes, privacy, and climate change.
- Infrastructure & Innovation – Fund projects in transportation, AI, and renewable energy.
China’s foothold in California comes primarily through economic influence, not territorial control. While claims that “China owns California” are exaggerated, China does have significant economic ties to the state in key areas:
1. Real Estate Investment
- Chinese investors (both private and state-backed) have historically been major buyers of California real estate.
- Focus on luxury homes, commercial properties, and farmland.
- Impact: Drives up home prices, making California’s housing market even more expensive.
2. Trade & Ports
- California is China’s biggest U.S. trading partner, thanks to Los Angeles and Long Beach ports.
- These ports handle 40% of U.S. imports, much of it from China.
- Impact: California’s economy depends heavily on trade with China, giving Beijing leverage in trade disputes.
3. Chinese Companies in California
- Major Chinese companies operate in California, including:
- TikTok (ByteDance) – Headquartered in L.A., shaping social media and digital trends.
- BYD Motors – A Chinese electric vehicle (EV) company with a presence in California.
- Tencent & Alibaba – Invest in California startups and tech firms.
- Impact: These companies influence tech, social media, and consumer markets.
4. Investment in Tech & AI
- China has invested billions in Silicon Valley startups.
- Funding AI, biotech, and semiconductor companies, sometimes leading to security concerns.
- The U.S. government has restricted Chinese investment in critical industries, but ties still exist.
5. Agriculture & Farmland
- Chinese companies and investors own tens of thousands of acres of farmland in California.
- Focus on crops like nuts, fruits, and wine, which are exported back to China.
- Impact: Raises concerns about foreign control over U.S. food production.
Does This Mean China “Owns” California?
No. The U.S. government and private companies (like Apple, Google, and Chevron) dominate California’s economy. However, China’s financial ties give it influence, especially in trade, real estate, and tech.
Can China Use This Influence Against the U.S.?
- Yes: In trade wars, China has cut imports of Californian goods (like wine and almonds) to retaliate.
- No: The U.S. government can block Chinese investments (as it has done with TikTok and semiconductor deals).
China doesn’t control California, but it has deep economic connections that shape the state’s industries. California remains firmly under U.S. sovereignty, though global economic ties make it vulnerable to financial and political pressure from Beijing. China doesn’t have enough leverage to force California to really do anything since the tariffs were put into place. This move by the Trump Administration pushes China back from continuing their investments into California.
As of fiscal year 2024, California’s state debt was approximately $158.05 billion. When considering both state and local government debt, estimates suggest a total debt of around $1.6 trillion. Given California’s Gross State Product (GSP) of approximately $3.6416 trillion in 2022, the combined state and local debt represents about 44% of the state’s GSP. However, it’s important to note that different sources and methodologies can yield varying debt-to-GDP ratios. For instance, some reports indicate a debt ratio of 15.34% when considering specific debt components.
No, California does not have the legal power to unilaterally secede from the United States.
Why Can’t California Secede?
The U.S. Constitution does not allow it. The Supremacy Clause (Article VI) establishes that federal law is the highest law of the land, and there is no provision in the Constitution that allows a state to leave the Union. This means that, legally, California remains bound to the United States unless a significant legal change occurs.
The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled against secession. In Texas v. White (1869), the Court declared that states cannot unilaterally secede, stating that the Union is “indissoluble.” The ruling also clarified that the only way for a state to leave is with the approval of Congress and other states. This precedent makes any legal attempt at secession nearly impossible.
Even if California wanted to secede, Congress would have to approve it. This process would require a constitutional amendment, which demands approval from two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of all U.S. states. Given California’s economic power and political influence, it is highly unlikely that the federal government or other states would agree to its departure.
Could California Try Anyway?
Some groups, such as Yes California (the “CalExit” movement), have pushed for independence. However, any attempt at secession would likely be blocked by the federal government, much like how the Civil War settled the issue in the 1860s.
Could California Function as Its Own Country?
Economically, yes. With a $4 trillion GDP, California would be the 4th largest economy in the world, ahead of Germany. However, legally and politically, no. Secession would mean losing U.S. military protection, federal funding, and trade agreements, which could create significant instability.
California cannot legally secede from the United States without approval from Congress and other states, which is highly unlikely. The only realistic path forward for California is to seek greater autonomy within the U.S. system, rather than full independence.
So, the most influence California has is from Apple, Google, Chevron, Meta, Larry Ellison of Oracle, Patrick Soon-Shiong (from South Africa) of NantWorks, Donald Bren of Irvine Company and David Geffen of the music industry.
China accounts for around 20% of all revenue for Apple, and Chevron is selling their China assets worth 5 billion. That’s interesting. Meta’s revenue accounts for about 10% of its total revenue and Oracle about 12.5% from China. Patrick Soon-Shiong is still building IPOs and looking at China for investments, while Irvine Company stopped selling homes to China. All of this information points to China not contributing to a lot of revenue for California. It’s enough revenue to continue working with them but not enough for China to have any real influence.
Most likely, California is using China to save money on taxes, products and the like. While the federal government owns half the land, most of that is BLM, parks, military, science, Native American land and the like. Land that is being conserved for wildlife, science and military. If I had to guess who makes decisions for California, it would be Apple. They are the biggest company worldwide. While precise figures are not publicly available, Apple’s tax contributions to California are substantial, encompassing state income taxes, local sales taxes, and withholding taxes related to employee equity compensation. These contributions play a significant role in the state’s revenue, reflecting Apple’s position as one of the world’s largest and most profitable companies. But the amounts are just a few billion, which doesn’t offer much and only contributes to a few percentages of the state’s revenue.
Power in California is shared among government officials, corporate leaders, unions, and advocacy groups. Tech giants and labor unions hold economic and legislative power, while state leadership (the governor and legislature) set policy agendas. Additionally, wealthy donors, lobbyists, and environmental groups shape decisions behind the scenes.
Corporations and labor unions are two of the most powerful forces shaping California’s legislation, each using different methods to influence laws and policies. Corporations leverage their financial power through lobbying, campaign donations, and economic threats, while labor unions rely on worker mobilization, strikes, and political endorsements to push their agendas. While California is widely seen as a labor-friendly state, big businesses still wield enormous influence in key policy areas such as taxation, technology regulation, and housing.
Corporate Influence on Legislation
Major industries, including tech, real estate, agribusiness, and entertainment, spend millions lobbying California lawmakers and funding political campaigns. Tech giants like Google, Apple, Meta, and Tesla have influenced data privacy laws, labor regulations, and automation policies. For example, when California passed its landmark Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), tech firms fought hard to water it down and later pushed for amendments to make compliance easier for businesses. Similarly, real estate developers and landlords have aggressively lobbied against rent control measures, such as Proposition 21 in 2020, which aimed to expand tenant protections but was defeated due to heavy corporate spending.
Beyond lobbying, corporations use their economic power as leverage, threatening to relocate jobs or investments if state policies become unfavorable. Tesla CEO Elon Musk moved Tesla’s headquarters to Texas in 2021, citing California’s tax and labor laws as too restrictive. Similarly, Hollywood studios have historically pressured the state for tax incentives, threatening to move productions elsewhere if they don’t receive financial breaks. This strategy often forces lawmakers to reconsider regulations that might drive businesses out of the state, giving corporations significant bargaining power.
Corporations also shape public opinion through media influence, think tanks, and research funding. Companies like Meta and Google fund academic institutions and policy groups that publish research supporting corporate-friendly regulations. By controlling the narrative on key issues such as artificial intelligence, automation, and gig work, these firms can influence public perception and legislative debates in their favor.
Union Influence on Legislation
While corporations use financial power, labor unions rely on political organizing, strikes, and ballot initiatives to shape legislation. Unions such as the California Teachers Association (CTA), Service Employees International Union (SEIU), and United Farm Workers (UFW) have played a major role in passing pro-labor laws, including increases in the minimum wage and expanded workplace protections. For example, in 2023, SEIU-backed fast-food workers secured a $20-per-hour minimum wage after years of protests and negotiations with lawmakers.
One of the most effective tools unions use is the strike, which can cripple industries and force legislative action. In 2023, Hollywood writers and actors, led by the Writers Guild of America (WGA) and SAG-AFTRA, went on strike against major studios, demanding better pay and job protections against AI-generated content. The strike lasted months, halting film and TV production and putting pressure on both studios and lawmakers to address industry concerns. The strike ultimately led to improved wages and residual payments for streaming content, demonstrating the power of organized labor.
Unions also play a crucial role in electoral politics, endorsing candidates and funding campaigns in exchange for pro-labor policies. The CTA is one of the most powerful unions in the state, influencing education funding and teacher protections. Similarly, SEIU has played a key role in shaping healthcare policies and public sector labor laws. By organizing voters and funding progressive candidates, unions ensure that labor-friendly policies remain a priority in the state legislature.
Who Holds More Power—Corporations or Unions?
Both corporations and unions are extremely powerful in California, but their influence varies by issue. Corporations dominate in areas such as tax policy, business regulations, and housing laws, where financial power and economic leverage give them an edge. However, unions hold significant sway over labor laws, wages, and worker protections, thanks to their ability to mobilize large groups of workers and influence elections.
California has a reputation as a pro-labor state, with some of the strongest worker protections in the country. However, corporations still win major policy battles, particularly when their financial interests are at stake. For example, in 2020, gig economy companies like Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash spent over $200 million to pass Proposition 22, which classified gig workers as independent contractors instead of employees. Despite strong opposition from unions, the overwhelming corporate spending on advertising and lobbying helped secure a win for the tech companies.
Overall, California’s political landscape is shaped by a constant struggle between corporate power and organized labor. While unions have been successful in securing worker protections, corporations continue to use their wealth and influence to push business-friendly policies. The outcome of this battle depends on public opinion, electoral politics, and the ability of each side to mobilize support for their causes.
California receives approximately $153 billion a year in federal funds, accounting for nearly 34% of its total budget. If California were to lose its $153 billion in federal funding, the state would face a significant financial crisis that could have major consequences for both the state’s economy and its residents. While California has the largest economy of any U.S. state and a massive state budget of approximately $450 billion, the loss of federal support would lead to a budget shortfall that could not be easily overcome. The federal funds represent around 34% of the state’s total budget, meaning a significant portion of its services and programs would be directly impacted.
The loss of federal funding would particularly affect critical state programs such as healthcare, education, transportation, and social services. For example, California’s Medi-Cal program, which covers over 14 million low-income residents, relies heavily on federal funding—about 50% of its costs are paid for by the federal government. Without this support, California would be unable to maintain such an expansive health program, leaving millions without essential healthcare. Similarly, federal funding supports K-12 education, special education programs, and student financial aid for California’s universities, and a significant reduction in these funds would force the state to either cut educational services or find alternative ways to fund schools. Public transportation projects and infrastructure development also rely on federal grants, and the loss of those resources would delay or halt critical infrastructure projects, negatively impacting the state’s economy and transportation system. Additionally, federal funds provide essential social services like food assistance and housing, and cutting these programs would leave millions of Californians vulnerable to poverty and homelessness.
If the federal funds were removed, California would have to explore alternative revenue sources to avoid severe cuts to services. One option would be to raise taxes, which could include increasing income, sales, or corporate taxes. However, California already has some of the highest taxes in the U.S., and further tax hikes could drive both businesses and wealthy residents out of the state. Alternatively, the state could reduce its spending on programs like healthcare, education, and infrastructure, but such cuts would likely lead to widespread public discontent and have long-term economic consequences. Another option could be for the state to borrow more money by issuing additional bonds, although this would increase California’s debt and result in higher interest payments in the future, creating long-term financial instability. The state might also consider finding new revenue streams, such as taxing digital services or expanding public-private partnerships, to fill the void left by federal funding.
While California could technically survive without federal funding, the immediate impact would be severe. Millions of residents would lose access to healthcare, education, housing, and other vital services, leading to significant social and economic challenges. The state would need to implement drastic measures, such as raising taxes or reducing services, which could hurt its economic growth and quality of life. However, because California has such a large and diverse economy, it would likely find ways to adapt over time, although it would take years of financial restructuring. In the short term, California would face a devastating loss of essential services, and the state’s ability to function as it does today would be drastically compromised.
Overall, California’s revenue is driven primarily by income taxes, followed by sales taxes and corporate taxes. The personal income tax system is the most significant and often the most volatile, with state finances closely tied to the performance of the economy and the wealth of its residents. As of 2024, the population of California is approximately 39.5 million people. It remains the most populous state in the U.S., accounting for about 12% of the nation’s total population. The state has seen steady population growth over the years, though the rate of growth has slowed in recent years due to factors like high living costs, housing shortages, and migration trends.
It is clear China doesn’t have any real power over California and that the state is gridlocked with the federal government for funds. California and its wealth attracts white collar crimes and corruption at the state level, which has been a problem for the state.
California has faced numerous instances of white-collar crimes and state corruption over the years, involving individuals in powerful positions within both government and business. These cases have ranged from fraud and embezzlement to bribery and insider trading, often involving large-scale financial manipulation. Some of the most notable examples of white-collar crimes and state corruption include:
One of the most infamous white-collar crimes tied to California was the Enron scandal in 2001. Although Enron was based in Texas, it had significant ties to California during the state’s energy crisis. Enron traders were found to have manipulated electricity prices in California, contributing to rolling blackouts and sky-high energy costs. The company’s fraudulent accounting practices led to its bankruptcy, and the scandal prompted widespread scrutiny of both corporate behavior and California’s deregulated energy markets.
Another major case was the Theranos scandal, which rocked the health-tech industry. Founded by Elizabeth Holmes, Theranos promised to revolutionize blood testing, but it was later revealed that the company’s technology was not capable of performing the tests as claimed. Holmes and former Theranos president Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani were charged with wire fraud and conspiracy to defraud investors and patients. This scandal highlighted the dangers of unchecked corporate ambition and the lack of oversight in Silicon Valley’s startup culture.
In 2016, Wells Fargo became embroiled in a massive fraud scandal where employees opened millions of unauthorized accounts to meet sales quotas. The scandal involved deceitful practices at one of California’s largest banks, and it resulted in hefty fines and the resignation of top executives. The case revealed the dark side of corporate culture, where employees, under pressure to perform, engaged in widespread fraud to meet unrealistic targets.
State-level corruption has also been a persistent issue in California, with several high-profile cases over the years. In 2008, Senator Don Perata (D-Oakland) faced corruption allegations after being accused of accepting bribes and misusing his political influence for personal gain. Though Perata was never convicted, the case underscored the vulnerabilities of the political system to corruption and the potential for misuse of power for personal enrichment.
Another significant example of corruption came during the California energy crisis between 2000 and 2001, when Governor Gray Davis and other officials were accused of being too closely aligned with energy companies like PG&E. Critics argued that political decisions were influenced by campaign contributions, and that California’s electricity prices were manipulated by companies to maximize profits, contributing to the energy shortages and rolling blackouts the state experienced. While there were no criminal charges, the scandal was a key factor in the 2003 recall election that removed Davis from office.
A more recent example of corruption in California came in the form of the “Varsity Blues” college admissions scandal that unfolded in 2019. This nationwide scheme involved wealthy parents, including actress Lori Loughlin, paying large sums to college admissions consultant Rick Singer to bribe college officials and secure spots for their children in prestigious universities. The scandal implicated several top universities, including the University of Southern California (USC), and revealed how deeply ingrained corruption can be in the college admissions process. The fallout led to criminal charges, convictions, and increased scrutiny of university admissions practices across the nation.
Additionally, California has seen local political corruption in various cities, with several mayors and local politicians convicted or investigated for engaging in bribery, kickbacks, and misappropriation of public funds. For instance, Los Angeles City Councilmember José Huizar was indicted in 2018 on racketeering and money laundering charges after allegedly accepting bribes from developers in exchange for zoning changes and development approvals. The case highlighted the ongoing challenges of corruption at the local government level and the close ties between political figures and the real estate industry.
California has a number of institutions dedicated to tackling both white-collar crime and political corruption. The California Department of Justice, the FBI, and the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) investigate and prosecute individuals involved in fraudulent activities, bribery, and misuse of public office. These agencies have brought several high-profile cases to trial and continue to monitor the state’s business and political environment for signs of misconduct.
Despite these efforts, white-collar crimes and state corruption remain persistent issues in California. High-profile scandals continue to highlight the vulnerabilities of both the corporate world and government to misuse of power and financial fraud. While the state has taken steps to tighten campaign finance laws, improve transparency in political donations, and increase penalties for corruption, these cases still serve as reminders of the ongoing need for vigilance and reform to combat unethical behavior in both the public and private sectors.
The idea of Northern California seceding from the rest of the state has been discussed sporadically over the years, but as of now, there has been little substantial progress toward achieving independence. The movement for Northern California to break away and form its own state has been primarily driven by political, economic, and cultural differences between the northern and southern regions of California. Those advocating for secession argue that Northern California (which often includes areas like Shasta County, Siskiyou County, and parts of the Bay Area) has different priorities, values, and challenges compared to Southern California. However, the secessionist movement has encountered many obstacles that make it difficult to realize.
Key Factors Driving the Secessionist Movement
- Political and Economic Differences: Supporters of Northern California secession argue that the state’s political power is heavily concentrated in Southern California and the Bay Area, and that Northern California’s interests are often overlooked in Sacramento. Additionally, the economic priorities of the north, which are more focused on agriculture, natural resources, and rural development, can be at odds with the more urbanized and tech-centric economy of Southern California. Some feel that Northern California is left to deal with high taxes, regulations, and other policies that benefit the more densely populated and urban areas.
- Cultural and Social Divides: Northern Californians often feel culturally distinct from those in the south. Northern California is known for its more rural, conservative tendencies, while Southern California, especially the Bay Area, tends to lean more liberal. This divergence in values has fueled the sentiment among some residents that they would be better off as a separate entity where their social values and political priorities could be better represented.
The idea of creating a new state, often referred to as “Jefferson” or the State of Jefferson, has been discussed for over a century. The State of Jefferson movement has gained occasional traction, particularly in rural northern counties like Siskiyou, Modoc, and Shasta, where residents feel disconnected from the larger, more urban areas of California. In recent years, there have been occasional calls for Northern California to secede, driven by frustrations over the state’s policies, including water rights, forest management, and high taxes.
However, while there are groups that advocate for secession, such as the State of Jefferson proponents, these efforts have mostly been symbolic, with little political or legal success. In 2014, some supporters even went so far as to form a petition for Northern California counties to secede, but it didn’t lead to any tangible action in Sacramento or Washington.
The legal hurdles to secession are immense. For a region to separate and form its own state, the U.S. Constitution requires that the proposal be approved by both California voters and Congress. The process is complicated and requires significant political and legal maneuvering. Additionally, there is no significant support from the California state government or major political parties to allow Northern California to break away. State politicians and officials from the southern regions are unlikely to support secession, as it would diminish their influence and resources.
Moreover, forming a new state involves not only political approval but also economic considerations, such as creating an entirely new state government, funding, and infrastructure. Northern California would face challenges establishing a tax base and securing resources to support its population and economy without relying on the more populous and wealthy areas of the current state.
In the past few years, the push for Northern California secession has seen a resurgence, largely fueled by growing frustration over state policies on issues like water rights, taxation, and environmental regulations. Some rural areas in the north, such as Siskiyou County, have passed resolutions calling for the state to look into creating a separate state. However, these movements still face significant opposition from both within California and from the federal government.
While the State of Jefferson remains a symbolic movement, it has gained some attention at local levels, with occasional rallies and calls for new legislation. However, as of now, the movement has not advanced beyond protest or petition efforts.
In short, while the idea of Northern California seceding remains part of the state’s political fringe, there has been no substantial progress toward actually achieving independence. The movement is still limited in scope, facing significant political, legal, and economic challenges. It is unlikely that California will split anytime soon, though tensions between the more rural, conservative north and the urban, liberal south continue to be a source of debate in state politics. Until significant shifts occur in either state or federal governance, Northern California’s push for secession remains more of a symbolic protest rather than a realistic political goal.
Data doesn’t lie. California appears to be happy with its current arrangement. The state is in debt, but not over the fiscal cliff. It has plenty of federal funds coming in making up 35% of its budget which is tax free. They could lose the funding and survive, but do not have any dependency on anything or anyone other than that. This points to the Governor which is the President and CEO of the corporation of California. As of recent estimates, Gavin Newsom’s net worth is generally reported to be between $20 million and $30 million. His wealth primarily comes from his real estate investments, business ventures, and his marriage to Jennifer Siebel Newsom, a filmmaker and the founder of the Representation Project. Newsom’s family also has significant business ties, including his involvement in PlumpJack Group, a hospitality and winery company. He gained considerable wealth through a combination of these investments, which include ownership stakes in wineries, restaurants, and real estate.
Additionally, his wealth was influenced by his early career in business, before entering politics, and by his marriage to Siebel Newsom, who has her own financial success in the film and social impact sectors. This wealth has been a subject of scrutiny during his time as a public official, though his financial assets are legally disclosed and have been reviewed during his tenure as governor. This means he already had wealth before coming into office. The control grid of power is sporadic and not duly set on one person or company or country. The real masters over California would be the federal government as they give that state more than anyone else. If I were to want control over california, I would go to the senators, congressmen and governor first, then to the people who cut them their checks.
All of this information above is available to the public. The underground information is the Brown’s, Alessandro’s, Luciano’s, Newsom’s and Pelosi families. Nancy’s son Paul married into the Alessandro family (heroin smugglers) and The Baltimore Mafia. John Pelosi’s son Ron married William Newsome’s daughter. The Newsom family were the attorneys for the Getty family. The Newsom family are now the administrators of the Getty Trust. For 80 years, these four families have ruled the state of California ever since. Brown’s, Alessandros, Newsom/Getty and Pelosi. These are the supposed mafia that control the entire state of California through drugs, bribes, extortion, politics, murder and kidnapping. More on those families later.
Source